Al Di Meola on CNBC - "Streaming is Killing Music"

I enjoy Spotify, I can listen to the Complete Hank Williams box. I wanted to buy the CDs, but on amazon it looks out of print.

 

It's obvious affecting him if he can no longer afford (I'm hoping JUST) a shirt.

 

agreed, lots of great music to be had but it is not popular, not selling and not helped by streaming music.

2014
1. Taylor Swift - 1989
2. Various Artists - Frozen Soundtrack
3. Sam Smith - In The Lonely Hour
5. Various Artists - Guardians of the Galaxy Soundtrack
6. Beyoncé - Beyoncé
7. Barbra Streisand - Partners
8. Lorde - Pure Heroine
9. One Direction - Four
10. Eric Church - The Outsiders

1970
1. Bridge Over Troubled Waters
2. Led Zeppelin II Led Zeppelin
3. Chicago Chicago
4. Abbey Road The Beatles
5. Santana Santana
6. Get Ready Rare Earth
7. Easy Rider Soundtrack
8. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Soundtrack
9. Joe Cocker! Joe Cocker
10. Three Dog Night Captured Live at the Forum Three Dog Night

I am not a fan of Rolling Stone top whatever lists but in their top 100 exactly two albums are from this century. The top ten albums of 2014 combined didn't sell as much as #10 did in 1970. The facts are clear, since streaming music came along, people are not buying music and the top selling records are disposable at best. How anyone can think that free music streaming is good for, artists, labels or fans is beyond me. Sure its free and easy for the consumer but it will not sustain the industry or bring the great new music that is out there to the market.

 

I saw him live at the Toronto Jazz Festival and it was an awesome show...He played a track from that new album (Babylon) and it was excellent. There's really nothing wrong with that album cover. I don't see how a man's shoulders are so offensive.

And I believe he was complaining about the percentage of money he's paid in the streaming of his music in relation to the record company.

 

Did I comment on the industry, or what's in the Top 10 of 2014? Nope, I commented on this line:

There isn't a tremendous amount of great new albums that come up from year to year.

Which is simply not true. But to comment on streaming directly...the last four or five albums I've bought this year were directly related to being sampled on a streaming service first. Directly, not indirectly.

 

Exactly what IS the label's role at this point?

There's no physical product. The artist can self-produce and provide all creative content. Promotions can be done by freelance services.

The only answer an outsider like me can imagine is that there is some sort of mob-like corporate control over distribution, held over from the old days.

But I know nothing about business.

I'm struggling to "adapt" to my own downward-spiral; hardly a simple Just-Do-It proposition.

The bigger picture is: them what has, gets.

 

Right, and I've said three times now that there is good new music. Getting a free sample and then buying the album is the wsy it should work but that is the exception not the rule.

 

Doing my part.

 

TV has never been better than it is right now.

 

Yeah, i don't have a secretary who uses a typewriter anymore.

 

Or any clear understanding of the working man!

 

Agreed, and anyone who keeps complaining about his album covers should actually listen to his music.
Class A guitar playing on well-arranged material.

 

Agreed. He is also exactly the kind of artist whose opinion on this matter I wanted to hear. Not big to not be affected at all, but successful enough to make a nice income (and to miss that income if it went away) from his recordings.

Although to be fair, I assume the album cover posts were meant in fun. Some of his album covers are undeniably funny. "Kiss My Axe", anyone?

 

Nonsense. It's how you partake and what you're looking for that's the problem.

Sure, there's a lot of dreck, but there's also a ton of quality shows that are excellent - from fiction, to documentary, and yes, even some reality TV, it's never been better. Networks that cater to a specific genre. Not to mention sports with HD, camera angles and other new technology, and the ability to watch your favorite team play every game if you want.

Literally stuff I could only dream about as a kid.

 

The solution is as plain as the nose on Al's face: more vinyl please!

 

oh geez...another one! he and Gene Gene the talking machine!

 

Please tell me you meant streaming.

 

How is he talking about the death of music? He's talking about the dissolution of proper wages coming back to those who create the music. Back when music was largely bound to the music industry, musicians generally got a raw deal, but at least they had a solid vehicle to release music and tour to support the industry and themselves.

These days, the industry is a complete mess and the free streaming of music reduces any profits a musician can realize.

To be clear, I'm not a fan of DiMeola, but being a musician is a job like any other job. They deserve market share payment like anyone else, and when the market becomes free music, where's the incentive for musicians to produce music? The incentive for crap bands to produce music will always be there; difference being that the crap bands have as much opportunity to market themselves as the good bands. Net loss IMO.

 

What you say is largely true. The labels have an "old-business" metality. But they still have leverage into the mediums from the old guard -- TV, Radio, Big Entertainment. The conundrum is that these avenues are going to be very expensive thru the label (recoupables) for any new artist today. Industry contracts still utilize a combination of these components for success. And if you don't hit big early you wash out early. The days are over for multi album deals that let you get to 3 or 4 releases before you are required to make it big.

Successful indie musicians forge a path that requires much more sweat equity -- full time effort -- that can build a sustainable income. But this path will be futher inward from the public consciousness. IOWs you may not be a big-name star. But you could be a career musician that has creative control over what you do. Shelf life for music is longer because you don't really have a label-determined schedule to meet. You can control how you release/license your own material; earnings are not cut up before $$ get to you. The caveat here: there are no six-figure cash advances from the big labels to stoke-up the process out of the starting gate. Seed money has to be raised (gigs, kick-starters, part-time jobs, loyal fans). Recording projects are planned and sourced out in modest facilties. Packaging and marketing is done in-house.

Once you decide to take the plunge and quit your "real' job, a nugget of good advise: recruit people into your inner circle that have, in addition to musical talent, graphics and web experience, customer service experience and even financial experience. These are key areas that will need to be worked routinely in order to be successful as an indie artist. Know what you want and be ready to talk business all the time.

 

I don't think that's the whole story. Musicians are artists, and many will make art without pay,
and this complicates the simple narrative that it's just a job like any other.
Historically, many great artists have died penniless. In modern times, the people who make
music for the money and fame tend to be the "American Idol" type of personality I despise.

The whole issue of getting paid to make art is more complex than it being just a job,
when the potential is super-weath or subsistence. It's not like the music stars are arguing
for a living wage for all musicians, it's more like they're protecting the potential ability to get rich.

 

There is definately little incentive for (established) artists to put out new albums. This is evident in the very long cycle times between releases. Back in the day, we got new music from folks about every year or so. Now, five years is not uncommon. Look at U2, they teased us for years about a new album (or two) coming our way. Five years later we get something that sounds like it was thrown together in a week. They obviously make their living doing other things.

Some bands are creative in their live shows. Groups like Umphreys McGee have a constant stream of intereting live stuff on their site. I think that is kinda cool (even though I am not a big fan). Like many said above, new artists need to be enterprising and creative to "make it".

 

I have some honest questions about this. Is it possible that the labels are making money because their entire catalogs are available for streaming? The scenario I'm thinking is that you've got a factory with 10,000 water faucets all giving a tiny drip of water. The individual faucets themselves dont generate much. But the water, as a whole, flows in a total huge amount.

If this is whats going on, that the "faucets" are the artists, then I could see how they dont make anything at all but the label makes a fortune. The label pays the artist the legit, legal amount they are entitled to, but it amounts to next to nothing.

IF this is true, then Dimeola may have a point. Raise the payout for each play an artist gets.

I dont know if this is accurate or not, I'm asking an honest question. Is this how it works?

 

This really very simple.

$10 a month and I get unlimited access to virtually every artist and their entire catalog.

$25 and I get one record that plays for about 40 minutes. You tell me which business model better sustains and supports an artist and industry.

You don't buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.